-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: I. Souvatzis <ignatios@cs.uni-bonn.de>
A: andrea <andrea.franceschini@linet.it>; tech-net@netbsd.org
<tech-net@netbsd.org>
Data: marted́ 6 aprile 1999 12.53
Oggetto: Re: R: arp.
>On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 12:46:23PM +0200, andrea wrote:
>>
>> -From: Crist J. Clark <cjc@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> >[1] The Secondary Router would not actually be doing routing in this
>> >case. It's acting more like a switch. You did not really tell us why
>> >you are doing this. Would getting a switch be a better option for you?
>>
>> Tell me more about this.
>> What do you mean for 'switch' exactly?
>> Can a unix-box be configured like a switch ?
>
>Let me rephrase his question.
>
>"Why do you have the secondary router at all?"
>
> -is
Because i need to get all traffic passing trough one single machine in order
to perform bandwith-limitation.